Apology accepted I guess.

I still dont understand the unwavering support for Josh, he's caused a lot of damage and is completely unprofessional. I'm going to continue posting here, Richard Dawkins didn't make that forum what it was.

Paul G wrote:Apology accepted I guess.

I still dont understand the unwavering support for Josh, he's caused a lot of damage and is completely unprofessional. I'm going to continue posting here, Richard Dawkins didn't make that forum what it was.

Personally, I think at least in public he is absolutely right to stand by his man. It's management 101, he's no doubt still a valued member of the RDF team, and public humiliation can only harm that in future. Whether private reprimands have taken place is none of my business.

Pauline wrote:

RichardPrins wrote:

Crocodile Gandhi wrote:PZ Myers has made a brief post about this on Pharyngula.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010 ... _whole.php

'Everyone moves on now, Right'

Correct we have already moved onto another forum...

+1

If an announcement about what was actually going to be happening to the forums before closing them would have been the best way to have prevented the entire problem. The RDF staff handled the change over extremely badly but hopefully everyone can move on now.

One thing I would like to see of the old forum is a few links to help lost members find their way to this and other sites where they can meet up with their acquaintances, especially if the avatars are going to be removed.

My response on the site:

While this apology goes some distance, it doesn't go far enough. I would like to call on Professor Dawkins to publicly condemn the high-horsed, heavy-handed, duplicitous and bullying behaviour given to the Moderating staff by Josh and Andrew in this affair.

To Andrew, your vague and evasive behaviour regarding the new forum was simply disappointing and unacceptable. From this vagueness, I had very strong feelings that a lot of decisions were being done behind our backs. I was right to be suspicious, and I am still angry that your behaviour was so secretive.

Perhaps this condemnation can go hand in hand with sincere, comprehensive and meaningful apologies to us all from Andrew and Josh too?

I wonder, though, if there was an ulterior motive at play. Perhaps the convention in Melbourne, where RD did not want to be confronted publicly.

Pauline wrote:

RichardPrins wrote:

Crocodile Gandhi wrote:PZ Myers has made a brief post about this on Pharyngula.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010 ... _whole.php

'Everyone moves on now, Right'

Correct we have already moved onto another forum...

Correct we have indeed. And I am happy to help build and contribute to this forum. We don't need Richard's stamp of approval to build a robust community of atheists and the premiere site the RDF once was. But I don't think we're really hurting Josh Timonen or Richard Dawkins by our absence. It's almost like saying, "You can't fire me! I quit!"

While none of us were fired, we were certainly summarily dismissed. Now there stands a monument to our prior participation on RDF -- almost an effigy. Pfff. Yes come and read the old forum. And feel free to contribute to the new format, but you will be edited.

Like I said over at rationalia, apology accepted. However, some explanation of all the deleted threads, users and posts would have been nice. I doubt I'll be posting at the new site.

Although it was lacking one or two points, I found the content of Richard Dawkins' apology sufficient and it relieves me that he allowed the truth to prevail. On the other hand, it was also too late. The problem is that it came just before the tissue of lies was going to crack, due to the truth permeating the front page and disclosed in the various blogs by the incredible work of all people here. I can't help thinking that weren't it for those immediate threats and for the determination of a part of our bunch, he would have sticked to his position. So my confidence in him is still very much shaken. But I can only accept such an apology.

Now, the point is, I just like it better here ! I really hope that this forum will continue in the way it started. Don't all get back on RD.net, atheism is so much better without a guru !

Well, this is great. And now we have 2 forums.

Though I accept the apology, it is not enough for me to resume my contributing to the front page at RD.net. At this point, I can wish him the best in his endeavors sort of thing and can continue to use his writings as references in my work for answering questions at asktheatheists.com with a good conscience, as the guy clearly is not a deranged bastard after that apology.

Timonen needs to apologize publicly also and Dawkins needs to be consistent in handling the media, emphasizing that the volunteer staff were treated awfully. So I will still be watching those aspects. My trust has been shaken, and that does not get repaired overnight.

The ethical deadbeats like Decius and InYourFaceNewYorker can go wild in Dawkins' joint. I am sticking here with people who know how to stand up for what is right.

People are quite correct about berating in private, it is counterproductive to a good work relationship if you publically berate someone. I'm glad Professor Dawkins came out with this, it restores the respect I had lost for him. That being said, I have no intent to go back to RDF. Especially considering the lack of community it will have.

amyonyango wrote:I'm still disappointed that he seems to underestimate the need for people to simply chat and communicate on a social level.

I love reading and learning from the science and reason etc threads, but the beauty of the RDF was the balance between hardcore debate on important issues and research etc, and just nattering!

campermon wrote:I think what made RDF great was the fact that you could go from discussing serious science in one thread and then go to another thread and be silly, with the very same serious posters.

That's what made it a community.

I still feel that RD's vision of his new forum is rather...dry.

^ This. You can't expect a forum with 85,000 members, or rather 20,000 more or less regular contributors, to want to talk about science and reason and nothing but all the time. That shows a pratically autistic understanding of human beings. Fairly well-rounded people like to kick back and chit-chat sometimes as well as engage in the heavy-duty stuff. It's all context-dependent. I don't think Dawkins quite understands this: or understands it but doesn't want it.

I'm not so sure that there is any other motive. It seems like a reasonable apology from someone who finally looked at all the information instead of acting on emotion.

An OK apology I suppose.....

But the laughs and visiting nutters will be here*, so this is where I'm staying.


*I'm confident they'll soon learn that this is place for good natured and free flowing argument (OK, so sometimes in a very, how can I put it, 'Australian way') and great mix of serious stuff, fun, and bouncy ladies.


Ok, so I'm a shallow person, but I freely admit it. I just do what I can as I arrived too late to get the popcorn franchise.

Shaker wrote:

amyonyango wrote:I'm still disappointed that he seems to underestimate the need for people to simply chat and communicate on a social level.

I love reading and learning from the science and reason etc threads, but the beauty of the RDF was the balance between hardcore debate on important issues and research etc, and just nattering!

campermon wrote:I think what made RDF great was the fact that you could go from discussing serious science in one thread and then go to another thread and be silly, with the very same serious posters.

That's what made it a community.

I still feel that RD's vision of his new forum is rather...dry.

^ This. You can't expect a forum with 85,000 members, or rather 20,000 more or less regular contributors, to want to talk about science and reason and nothing but all the time. That shows a pratically autistic understanding of human beings. Fairly well-rounded people like to kick back and chit-chat sometimes as well as engage in the heavy-duty stuff. It's all context-dependent. I don't think Dawkins quite understands this: or understands it but doesn't want it.

I think you may mean aspergers not autism.

I don't think he's really lanced the boil entirely because Josh T has not been sacked. In the world of grown up politics, JTs position would be totally untenable. However much Dawkins may like and respect him personally, that is an entirely separate issue.

I think the apology has basically been made for 'political convenience' for his general reputation.

I feel quite cynical about it, but I'm happy to be proved wrong.

I'll see what his new thing is like..and sometimes may still post here I think.

It'll be good if this place keeps going. Best of luck to all who have worked hard to set it up, and will hopefully keep it going.

I think you may mean aspergers not autism.

My understanding was that Asperger's is at the high-functioning end of the spectrum of autism disorders. But we'll let that pass

anthroban wrote:Excuse me, but I find that offensive. Using 'autistic' in the way that you have is implicitly denigrating to anyone with autism - and that includes myself.

Not intended slightingly in any way whatsoever, and if I've caused any offence I apologise sincerely and unreservedly.

I'm done with forums, I'm going to get my life back. I think Dawkins is a shit.

Not done with this one, I trust, pen?